Features » August 18, 2008

Feeding the Beast

By controlling regulatory officers, the Bush administration has put a 'political watchdog' on the inside. With the stroke of a pen, Bush has usurped control of all government rulemaking.

When President Bush exits the White House in January, he will leave behind a federal government in shambles.

Since his first term, Bush has pressed forward with a radical view of the executive branch. Beyond adopting autocratic positions on foreign policy and taking broad liberties to subvert the Bill of Rights, Bush has waged a quieter – and perhaps more damaging – war at home against the very agencies under his charge.

From formaldehyde-soaked FEMA trailers, tainted pharmaceuticals and politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys, to allegations of retaliation against government whistleblowers and an exodus of career officials from key regulatory positions, the Bush administration has lorded over a highly politicized and increasingly ineffective federal bureaucracy.

Policy analysts and legal scholars paint a picture of an executive intent on controlling every aspect of the federal bureaucracy, in particular the agencies tasked with regulating industry and commerce.

Taken as a whole, the president’s rejection of international law and his consolidation of administrative oversight are representative of a decades-long effort by conservatives to implement a so-called “unitary executive theory” – a euphemism for virtually unlimited presidential power.

But for such a creation to succeed, the executive must assert its influence over all aspects of government, from the top down, through the ranks of the roughly 3 million civilian employees that today work in government jobs at more than 100 agencies and sub-agencies.

Even his detractors say this is something Bush has been especially adept at.

“Despite their ineptitude in a lot of other areas and how poor they are at governing, one of the things the Bush administration has been very good at is using administrative mechanisms to control policy outcomes,” says Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy at the nonpartisan watchdog group OMB Watch.

Bush didn’t invent this theory, but regulatory experts say his administration has worked harder than any other to perfect it.

“I have worked on regulatory issues inside the Beltway since 1976, and have watched five presidents come and go,” says Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform and a professor at University of Maryland Law School. “The Bush administration is the most hostile and aggressive toward these agencies by a couple of orders of magnitude, making the Reagan era look relatively benign.”

Steinzor says the next president will face a daunting task in putting the house back in order: “No matter who is elected in November, it will take years to repair this damage.”

The damage is evident in almost every federal agency and characterized most visibly by dwindling morale among career civil servants. None have suffered more than those in the scientific community, which has been forced to confront a growing cadre of inexperienced political appointees bent on pursuing a pro-business agenda.

An April survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly two-thirds of responding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists said they experienced political interference with their work.

“Politics is injected and elevated into decisions where science and rational judgment should prevail,” Melberth says. “Politics supersedes scientific and technical information that is critical to protecting our environment and health and safety at home and in the workplace.”

What’s more, research by political science professor David E. Lewis of Vanderbilt University shows that politicization results in lower agency competence and that political appointee-run programs earn systematically lower grades in most management areas.

Says Lewis: “Many of the politicization scandals in this administration came from cases where unqualified or inexperienced people got into key jobs … often with the power to hire others or control information flows.”

Congress seeks answers

Since the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, numerous hearings have examined the extent to which political policy has penetrated rulemaking.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, has been investigating the growth and influence of political appointees in federal agencies – in particular their interference with scientific research. Among the committee’s findings is that – despite Republicans’ oft-stated disdain for bloated government – the number of such appointees has actually expanded under Bush.

During his first term, federal jobs available to political appointees rose 15 percent, according to the 2004 edition of the “Plum Book,” which Congress publishes after each presidential election to list open positions.

In fact, in the first five years of the Bush administration, the total number of political appointees grew by 307 – or 12 percent – according to a 2006 report released by Waxman’s committee. At the same time, the number of Schedule C appointees – who are exempt from confirmation or qualification review – increased 33 percent during Bush’s first term.

In one of the more egregious examples, Bush appointed George Deutsch as NASA press officer in 2005. Deutsch, a then 24-year-old former Bush campaign staffer with no relevant scientific training, fell under fire almost immediately for attempting to censor the agency’s scientists. Most notably, he instructed senior scientists to refer to “the Big Bang” as a “theory,” and he tried to restrict scientists’ access to the media. He resigned in 2006 when it was revealed that he had lied on his resume about graduating from college.

But as the federal workforce has grown larger, it hasn’t gotten more done. Just the opposite: An analysis conducted by the Washington Post at the end of Bush’s first term found that since he took office, federal agencies had begun roughly one-quarter fewer regulations than President Clinton and 13 percent fewer than Bush’s father during their first terms.

Paul Light, a Brookings Institution fellow and author of A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse It, refers to this tactic as the “thickening” of government.

“Despite the president’s promise to bring business-like thinking to the federal government, the Bush administration has overseen, or at least permitted, a significant expansion of both the height and width of the federal hierarchy,” Light says. “There have never been more layers at the top of government, nor more occupants at each layer.”

For Bush, the slowing of the federal machine has been less about manipulating regulatory output and more about sabotaging the machine itself.

Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee that oversees the federal workforce, says that while he respects the authority of the executive branch to follow and implement certain policy initiatives, the Bush administration may have crossed an ethical line.

“We’ve been particularly concerned that some of the scientific community is being co-opted by political manipulation, and that policy is being presented as fact,” Davis says.

At the end of July, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) – chair of the House Judiciary Committee – held a hearing to take inventory of what he called the Bush “imperial presidency.” He noted a laundry list of administration shenanigans: improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys’ offices; misuse of executive branch authority (including unitary executive theory); misuse of presidential regulatory authority; and improper retaliation against administration critics.

A brief history of the unitary executive

The modern concept of a unitary executive was formalized during President Reagan’s first term, largely through the efforts of then-Attorney General Ed Meese. At its heart, the theory asserts the supremacy of the executive branch and the role of president as chief executive officer with unilateral authority over the workings of the regulatory functions of government.

Reagan codified this so-called “centralized regulatory review” through two sweeping executive orders that essentially gave the White House the power over regulatory policy – from inception to planning to final implementation.

In 1981, Reagan issued Executive Order No. 12291, which gave the newly created Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) the power to review all federal regulations, and introduced cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment to the regulatory process. A division of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – the executive agency charged with overseeing all federal agencies – OIRA became a liaison between regulatory officials and the Office of the President.

At the start of his second term, Reagan issued another executive order, No. 12498, that took centralized review even further, requiring regulatory agencies to submit an annual statement of “policies, goals and objectives” to ensure agency plans were in line with administration objectives.

OMB Watch’s Melberth says that under Reagan, the agency became known as a “black hole” where proposed regulation disappeared, never to be seen again.

“The power to coordinate information collection and to review proposed final regulations in a policy office of the White House made OMB the equivalent of a political censor over agency actions,” he says.

Melberth, a former law professor, says it got worse during George H.W. Bush’s presidency, when regulatory review was placed under the authority of the Council on Competitiveness, which Melberth describes as a “highly centralized reviewing authority, cloaked in secrecy.”

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Melberth says Clinton eased some of the restrictions of the previous Republican administrations, issuing Executive Order 12866, which limited centralized review to the most significant rules. Clinton also mandated that each agency head appoint a regulatory policy officer who would report directly to the agency head, a relationship that would undergo significant changes during the second Bush administration.

When Bush was elected president in 2000, conservatives saw an opportunity to put the unitary executive back in place. In January 2001, Robert Moffit, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies and a former Reagan OMB official, was finishing a policy paper articulating the bureaucratic vision of a unified executive. The president must “protect his right to select appointees based not only on their managerial prowess but also on their commitment to his policy agenda and their ability to advance, articulate and defend it,” Moffit wrote.

In a list of objectives, Moffit insisted that Bush should resist advice to leave careerists in top spots during the first days of his administration; increase the number of Schedule C (nonconfirmed) appointments; hire noncareer personnel on the basis of their commitment to his policy agenda; and protect his appointive power against congressional encroachments.

Lastly, Moffit suggested the administration review noncareer-to-career conversions in order to prevent Clinton appointees from integrating into career positions. Ironically, as Bush prepares to leave office, his own appointees are reportedly engaged in exactly this behavior.

Bush quickly put this plan into action. In 2002, he made changes to Clinton’s Executive Order 12866, giving more oversight authority to the OMB. In a congressional report that year, OIRA referred to itself as “the gatekeeper for new rulemakings.”

Throughout his tenure, Bush has used legal sleights-of-hand to apply the unitary executive and circumvent legislative authority, such as issuing “signing statements,” which are written comments issued by a president at the time of signing legislation that signal his intent to ignore certain aspects of it. He rejected long-held international standards on the treatment of detainees. And he showed utter disregard for the Bill of Rights, exemplified by his domestic spying program that authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States.

But Melberth says that when it comes to regulatory matters, the Bush administration’s masterstroke was its ability to open doors to elite, corporate interests with little regard for the consequences.

“One of the things this administration is going to be most known for is that they provided a lot of special access for business interests,” Melberth says. “They’ve allowed an unprecedented level of involvement by private interests in creating political policy with regard to regulation, with regard to rules – their energy policy, their greenhouse gas policy, all of that.”

In January 2007, Bush tightened his grip on the federal bureaucracy when he issued Executive Order 13422, which made three particularly worrisome changes to the Clinton-era document.

First, the order mandated that a regulatory policy officer (RPO) approve all new regulations. Second, it made these RPOs presidential appointees. (They were previously chosen by the agency head.) And third, the new language requires agencies to identify the “specific market failure” that any new regulation will address.

In other words, before a new regulation can be adopted, it must be shown that free market forces are somehow failing to address the problem, and then an administration policy officer must approve it.

By controlling regulatory officers, Brookings’ Light says the Bush administration has put a “political watchdog” on the inside. With the stroke of a pen, Bush has effectively usurped control of all government rulemaking.

Christopher Moraff writes about national politics, social justice and culture for a number of publications, including The American Prospect online, Design Bureau and The Philadelphia Tribune. His columns appear weekly on Philadelphia magazine's blog The Philly Post. Moraff, who lives in Philadelphia, is a member of the In These Times Board of Editors.

Welll, uh, because you said McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry,
were Marxists. And I said they weren't.
Then I said Debs was the last significant one, ie. got a significant vote.
Then you challenged me about the existance of a grassroots Marxist movement and I gave you four examples. Which you implicitly admitted to.
Then you avoided my challenge.
I think that's why.Posted by wangle on 2008-09-03 22:19:42

Wangle -

Finally read the first paragraph and realized that was a Vonnegut speech and not my own words?

For some reason you assume I do not know that Vonnegut is Marxist, or who Eugene Debs was. Stupid of you.
I am well aware of the Wobblies, and some of the personalities they ginned up in their minor footnote in the American labor movement. So, why are you so focused on Debs? Haywood and Flynn both died in the Soviet Union, and Flynn was given a state funeral by her Marxist masters in Moscow. So, why Debs? The IWW was noted for color, romance, and violence, but it never amounted to much in the big labor movement, much less in American political life, and it is now down to less than 1000 dues-paying members, most of whom are elitists (like you), and not laborers.
But you embody typical Marxist foolishness. You are fixated on a minor and failed dead-end in the long history of labor struggle in the United States. And you want me to be concerned about your silly challenge?
Norman Thomas had solid brass Marxist credentials, and ran for president more times than Debs did. Gus Hall ran as a Communist many times. Henry Wallace ran as a Progressive, beginning the long string of losers that were Marxist, but were too embarrassed to call themselves Communists or Socialists. The only thing they had in common was that they were losers, and had little effect on the American polity. That includes Debs. There is nothing to choose between these losers, regardless of how infatuated you are with Debs.
So, if you want a real challenge, try to figure out why you fantasize and romanticize about Marxist losers, when there is a big, wide, wonderful world out there.
And I assure you I will never apply "conflated platitudes" to any Marxist loser. Ever.Posted by scorp on 2008-09-03 18:10:36

Check out Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and you'll understand that class war has been going on for a long time in this nation of ours. You'll also get a good idea of why socialist idea were not enacted in the US. It wasn't that We the People didn't want livable wages, protection from abuse, a fair deal. It was that when our ancestors fought for these things they were impeded every step of the way by the ruling class and their government enablers. This is not to say that government doesn't work - government is a process - it's who is at the helm of that government that gives it its meaning, it's purpose. And for as long as we've had a governmment men of mmeans have made the decisions for the rest of us - after taking their profit off the top.Posted by Tim Brown on 2008-09-02 16:55:46

Finally read the first paragraph and realized that was a Vonnegut speech and not my own words?
Anyway...
So, can you give me a single example of the workers uniting to assume the chains of Marxist slavery?
Wouldn't any and every strike of the IWW or the American Railway Union qualify? Or are you looking for things like the Paris Commune or the Spanish Civil War?
You still haven't responded to my challenge to you on 8/23:
Furthermore I would challenge you to connect Eugene Debs, who I believe is the only significant Socialist candidate for president that this country has ever had, ideaologically, by word or deed, (and I mean specifically, not with conflated platitudes) with any of those candidates you named. I think your opinion on this would be interesting.
Oh and you're still ridiculous.Posted by wangle on 2008-09-02 08:55:40

Wangle -
As a self-confessed Marxist, you can't get any more ridiculous than you are.
OBAMA 2008 - Because THIS time, Marxism might work!
Listen, dim bulb, the American Constitution does work. We do not need to change, supplement, or reverse it with a foreign philosophy that has never worked.
So, why do you refuse to answer my questions and fall back on Marxist propaganda for the solution to all problems? Vonnegut, indeed! Why not quote dos Passos or Kahlo or Marx if you are searching for irrelevant Marxist nonsense?

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

So, can you give me a single example of the workers uniting to assume the chains of Marxist slavery? No, you cannot. Workers run like hell from Marxists when they understand the reality of Marxist domination. You need only to look at Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union to understand the truth of this observation.
If you wish to quote leftists, why not George Orwell, the greatest Leftist thinker that ever lived? One is reminded of Orwell's marvelous dictum:

"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool." - Notes on Nationalism, 1945.

Orwell was speaking of British Marxists who were trying to undermine the British war effort against the Germans in WWII when he said that.
Proud, aren't you?Posted by scorp on 2008-09-02 08:27:46

Scorp,
You are completely ridiculous.
-WanglePosted by wangle on 2008-08-31 14:35:09

Sheesh, Wangle, sometimes you Marxists are as dumb as dog shit. This is in response to your sequential posts starting at Aug 25, 2008 at 10:14 AM.
I am well aware that some people of education, culture, and good intent embrace Marxism; that is not in question. The question is: why do they persist in their delusion when all results of all Marxist experiments have resulted in failure, disaster, or catastrophe, depending upon to what degree Marxism is followed? Why do they credit Marxism with successes in which Marxism played no role? Why do they deny Marxism's failures way past the point of catastrophe? Why do they deliberately subvert the American democratic process in pursuit of Marxist goals? Because they are lying Marxists, of course. Dishonesty is the sacrament and fraud is the catechism of Marxism.

That wage earners, without social position or higher education or wealth, are of inferior intellect is surely belied by the fact that two of the most splendid writers and speakers on the deepest subjects in American history were self-taught workmen.

Well, yes, that holds true for many people, including Eric Hoffer. But that ignores the most salient point concerning Marxism; as a class, workers do not want anything to do with Socialism or Marxism. It is only the intelligentsia and elites that try to deceive people into voting for Marxist principles, or shoot them into submission, as the case may be. If Hillary and Obama stood up tomorrow and said that, in the spirit of honesty, they were announcing that they were really not "Liberals" or "Progressives" but Marxists, how long do you suppose the Democratic Party would survive?
There are two very good, and recent, demonstrations of this very point. The EU is trying to impose a Socialist bureaucracy form of government, and the people keep voting it down. Now the elites are trying to figure out how to implement their Marxist regime without the necessity of messy elections.
Then there is the sad, plaintive question, What's the Matter With Kansas? Well, Kansas does not want to be governed by Marxists, ya dumbshit.
Make no mistake. Dozens of countries have fallen under the Marxist yoke, and not a single one of the new revolutionary governments was led by workers. Violent Marxist revolutions were led by militant elites, bureaucratic Marxist revolutions were led by bureaucratic elites, and not a damn one of the many Marxist revolutions was led by workers. Which is not quite the way Marx theorized the process, of course.
Union membership in the United States has fallen by over half in the last fifty years, and much of that loss was due to union bureaucrats and their graft and corruption. It is certain that lots of people do not see the benefits of union membership. Now the Marxist unions are trying to pass laws that will coerce workers to joining the unions.

The statement has also entitled many in this country to say that socialists are anti-religion, are anti-God, and therefore absolutely loathsome.

Now you are simply lying. Not only is atheism not "loathsome", Marx preached that theism was a false doctrine used by the ruling classes to control the lower classes and Marxist atheism would free the people from false doctrines. But considering Marxisms universal failures wherever and to whatever degree applied, Marx is surely the most false of all doctrines. And theism, in its many forms, seems to be a universal human trait. Even atheists and Marxists have their rituals and catechisms to reinforce their teachings, which should not be necessary if Marxism had any validity.

When Marx wrote those words, by the way, we hadn't even freed our slaves yet. Whom do you imagine was more pleasing in the eyes of a merciful God back then: Karl Marx or the United States of America?

OK, but now we have freed our slaves nearly one-hundred-fifty years ago, and we have made much progress in human rights until LBJ's War on Poverty set back the processs immeasurably. But Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who recently died, and Natan Sharansky were survivors of Marxist slavery in the Gulag well within your lifetime. About twenty million of Stalin's slaves were not so lucky and died, unknown, unremarked, and ignored. And the institution of slavery persists in North Korea and Cuba. Being so happy with Marxism, I'm sure you are very proud of this record.
So, let's examine Mr. Hapgood's timeline. The Sermon on the Mount was about 2000 years ago.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Karl Marx was born in 1818.
So, Hapgood's moral example was 2000 years old, and as an American citizen, he owned the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" since 1791. How, may I ask, did Hapgood's Marxism enter into this equation? Hapgood certainly did not take a moral example from Marxist death and destruction, I hope, but by 1949, the date of his death, he was surely aware of the horrendous results of National Socialism and of International Socialism. Hapgood did not need Marxist justification for his rights as a citizen of the United States. So what did Marxism really do for him (and for you, for that matter)?
The three largest Marxist experiments in history, in dollar terms, are United States Social Security, the Soviet experiment from 1918 to 1991, and LBJ's War on Poverty.
Every President since Eisenhower has said that Social Security is not sustainanble and must be fixed. The Marxist fix is to raise taxes, which will, of course, lower investment and growth, and thereby reduce the products and benefits available for retirees.
Quite apart from the horrific death toll, 73 years of struggle in the Soviet Union resulted in economic collapse.
LBJ's War on Poverty was the ideal Socialist experiment. It cost $6 trillion from the late 1960s to the early 1990s, and the sole measurable result was the essential destruction of Black family life in the United States. (Destruction of families and family values was a prime Marxist goal.) Before the War on Poverty, over eighty percent of Black children lived in two-parent families, now the number is less than one in three. The results also included rootlessness, crime, and drugs. Proud, aren't you?Posted by scorp on 2008-08-31 11:49:41

Tim Brown,
Earlier I mentioned Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." The bottom up aspect in the early 19th century is one of our main virtues in his eyes.
It is understandble that today's immediate conmunication, huge increase in population, ability to cause mass destruction, etc. must change some of that, but there is still much to be said for the original idea.
Our city of around 100,000 people has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs to globalization. The housing crisis has made it nearly impossible for individuals to relocate. Tax increases have already begun to explode due to every level of government running budget deficits.
Most of these problems are the result of state or federal regulations (or lack of), economic programs and policies, or due to mismanagement by bureaucratic decisions we have no say in down here on the ground level.
The "trickle down" theory left this part out.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-30 08:32:09

Democratic Socialism -- not such a bad thing in practice, but it's unfortunate that the word socialism is always taken at its extreme. When it was first explained to me in a poly sci class all I could think of was Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao -- ruthless secular demigods that were gonna make us give up everything to The State. No thanks.
But I had the wrong definition. The State is actually supposed to be We the People - you know, bottom up government that is run by us -- and uses our tax dollars to invest in our collective future. Think of it as everybody chipping in to buy decent healthcare, the best public schools, investing in small businesses and new inventions that make life better for all of us.
And it's not mutually exclusive with capitalism; instead it uses real free market capitalism to let all of us make the choices as a team -- Team America. What true Democratic Socialism can do is gain some reasonable control over markets that are manipulated by those who hold the reins in the status quo. They sure as hell don't want change.
We really can't afford to go down this path much longer withour bankrupting our nation.Posted by Tim Brown on 2008-08-28 18:16:44

Wangle,
Most of the definitions I found for socialism what I was thinking of and included comments like Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-28 17:16:25

Well whatever you call your business I'm in favor of it. 16 ton of coal goes for about $1600 these days by the way.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-28 12:03:20

Wangle,
If they were partners in the investment I see no problem with sharing the wealth, but doesn't seem like socialism to me. It's just a simple partnership arrangement (something else I would never get involved with).
I recently read a history of coal mining in central Illinois and recalled stories my dad told me. His father took him down in the mine when he was in grade school to show him why it was important for him to study hard and get as much education as he could.
People were wading in cold water with donkey manure floating in it. They were lying on their sides in the vein digging with a pick. His father suffered a stroke and had black lung before my dad could finish high school. since Dad was the oldest son still unmarried (one of nine kids) he went to work and became the bread winner for his four sisters (who also worked) and a brother age five.
My great uncle mined in Missouri and literally live the Tennessee Ernie song, "You load 16 tons of No. 9 coal and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt." He was paid in scrip and always owed more than he got. He finally mailed his few belongings to my grandmother and hopped a freight with the Company Police chasing him. They were "THE LAW" there for immigrants who understood little English or Constitutional rights.
You mentioned the National Guard being called out for serious strikes Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-27 13:22:12

How is each worker’s “property interest determined?
By the value they add, in this case it would be by the amount of coal they haul up.
Will each invest his own money with a chance of a loss?
Certainly.
They also did this in your grandfather's time but in a more malevolent fashion. Workers were required to rent tools and carts from the mine owners so they could work their mines. Often when the mines were in remote areas workers were then paid in company scrip forcing them to be dependent on marked up goods in a company store.
My problems with mine owners from the 19th century is that yes they did pay people by weight for the coal but that price was unrelated to the value of the coal on the market. The price per ton was determined by how little the owner could get away with and still have people showing up. This still would have been acceptable if there was an even playing field for negotions between workers and owners. But there simply wasn't. They didn't let people freely organize. There's this whole nasty history of calling out Pinkerton Agents or the National Guard everytime there was a serious strike, shooting and kidnapping workers, blacklisting organizers, making people sign "Yellow Dog" contracts, and sending spies into organizational attempts. Not to mention refusing to redeem disloyal worker's scrip.
By contrast, in my humble opinion, your business, where you provide the risk and labor and you have a direct interest in your profits, and when there was too much work and you hired others to perform the extra work, negotiating with them on a level playing field, is socialism.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-27 12:02:01

Wangle,
My view on the capitalist mine:
The mine owner either bought the land or the mineral rights. Either there is, or is not, a profitable amount of coal there. He has taken the risk of purchase, exploration and development.
To make any money he must negotiate a price at which the workers will dig the coal so he can sell and continue to recoup his investment plus a profit. If they want a share in profits over and above their production agreement, they can offer to buy into the business, or buy shares if a public company. The owner can offer shares as a bonus and incentive.
This is a "free market." People are totally free to accept or reject work in this mine.
--------------
My view on the socialist mine:
How is each worker's "property interest determined? Will each invest his own money with a chance of a loss?
If not, then he should only be paid an agreed upon price per ton (which is how it was when my grandfather mined). The other workers in your list would also need to negotiate their wages. The right to organize gives them the power to demand safe working conditions and any other benefits to be provided by the owner/risk taker.
In my over forty years in business I borrowed the money to get started. I took all the risks and worrying. I did all the production and maintained all necessary costs. I bid my expertise and time to produce a service or product to suit each client. Price was always negotiated and satisfaction was my only reason for return business.
I am a believer in genuine free markets as opposed to what is labeled that today.
I chose to work alone because I wanted to do the work rather than become a manager with all the personnel problems. When I had more work than I could handle I simply reversed the negotiations and hired others to do it. If both parties were satisfied we did it repeatedly; if not we were free to decline.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-27 11:15:04

Dear WTH,
I couldn't agree with you more about the labels distorting things as well. I would assure you, though, that socialism (as an economic theory) is precisely about not giving to others what you yourself have earned. Thats actually what I consider capitalism to mean. According to the labor theory of value, which was first fully described by Benjamin Franklin, (and there's about six or seven varieties of this theory which wikipedia has a better explanation of than I could ever put into words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) your profit should be directly related to the amount of value your labor gives to the product and not the amount of time you spend working (we socialists call this wage slavery.) Mining is one of the more perfect vehicles for this (I'm descended from a long line of watermen myself.)
This is my view of a capitalist mine:
Someone, who already has a lots of money, buys the mine and then hires people to work it. Now that coal has no value (except on the balance sheet of the corporation that owns it) whiles its in the ground. (Pretty nifty explanation for why McCain is backing offshore drilling so hard right now too.) That mine owner didn't put the coal in the earth, didn't work the mine, but somehow he alone has a right to all the profits that those coal miners generate. By the way mining was fairly lucrative back in the day compared to other jobs that require no education, it was also deadly. At the same time the owner's rational interests dictate that he should minimize cost to maximize profits. Costs being things like wages, safety precautions, tools.
This is my view of a socialist mine:
Everyone who works the mine has a property interest in the mine related to the value that their individiual labor generates so long as they work at it. The amount of coal they bring up from the earth and the value of that coal on the market determine what the worker's share is. Now I know what your thinking. What about overhead? What about management? What about entrepreneurship? These are important jobs too and they definitely deserve to affect the share distribution as well. What kind of share should they have? I don't know. Let the free market determine that. Also please note that now everyone's interest is to minimize costs and maximize profits. The workers have a direct, clear incentive to work harder and smarter.
Under capitalism I just see serfs on some feudal manor, under socialism I see free men.
Finally I'd like to say that Marx was a great admirer of the productivity of capitalism, he didn't view the two systems as antagonistic. He thought just as capitalism organicly grew from feudalism, socialism will organically grow from capitalism. I also apologize for going so unbelieveably off topic in the last few posts.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-27 09:09:49

Wangle,
I guess I would be classed a fiscal conservative and a social liberal these days. Really, though I think the labels
are too often distorted to have real meaning. The connotations leave me with mixed feelings. Those who use them most seem to conserve little or want to confine me to live according to their views.
Socialism has never appealed to me because I picture it allowing everyone to share what some have worked for. I like the Little Red Hen approach to life.
Shortly before I was retired (due to my clients leaving for cheaper labor elsewhere), a major credit card firm made a pitch for their services. My response was simply, " Why would I want to pay your company a percentage for work I did?"
Another call was from a collection agency. Their agent was amazed when I said I had no outstanding, payments due. In forty plus years I only lost $634 to my bad judgement in who to do work for. (Some I pursued for awhile myself before collecting.)
In general, I believe we get the best results the closer to home any responsibility rests. Our most serious problems today have been trickle-down from the highest government and economic levels and we have less clout than ever.
I just started reading "Democracy in America" by Alexis di Tocqueville and his observations seem to indicate that bottom up authority was one of the greatest assets in the beginning.
On the other hand my medical care and prescriptions from the VA, what some would call "socialized medicine", are better than most recent private care experiences Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-27 06:36:50

Sorry WTH I think I might have scared scorp away. Excuse me while I go eat some babies or whatever my people do.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-26 17:46:34

Scorp,
You seem to have spent a lot of time on your post to me (Aug 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM), but I fail to understand what you are getting at.
Are you trying to change my opinion of Bush? My opinion of bureaucracies? My opinion of congress? My opinion of this article?
Please clarify.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-26 11:13:50

......We met in Indianapolis after the end of World War Two, and he had become an official in the CIO. There had been some sort of dust-up on a picket line, and he had just testified about it in court. The judge had interrupted the proceedings to ask Powers Hapgood why, with all his social and economic and educational advantages, he had chosen to lead such a life. And Powers Hapgood replied, "Why, because of the Sermon on the Mount, sir."
Another of our freshwater ancestors was Eugene Victor Debs, of Terre Haute, Indiana. A former locomotive fireman, Eugene Debs ran for president of the United States four times, the fourth time in 1920, when he was in prison. He said, "As long as there is a lower class, I'm in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I'm of it. As long as there's a soul in prison, I am not free."
Some platform. A paraphrase of the beatitudes.
And again: Hooray for our team.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-25 09:21:23

Oh and just for fun, here's an excerpt of Kurt Vonnegut's speech when he was given the Carl Sandburg Literary Award from the Friends of the Chicago Public Library:
I thank you for this honor, although it is a reminder that I am not nearly the passionate and effective artist Carl Sandburg was. And we are surely grateful for his fog, which came in on little cat feet.
But tonight seems an apt occasion as well for celebrating what he and other American socialists did during the first half of the past century, with art, with eloquence, with organizing skills, to elevate the self-respect, the dignity and political acumen of American wage earners, of our working class.
That wage earners, without social position or higher education or wealth, are of inferior intellect is surely belied by the fact that two of the most splendid writers and speakers on the deepest subjects in American history were self-taught workmen. I speak, of course, of Carl Sandburg of Illinois and Abraham Lincoln, of Kentucky, then Indiana, and finally Illinois. Both, may I say, were continental, freshwater people like ourselves.
Hooray for our team!
I know upper-class graduates of Yale University who can't talk or write worth a nickel.
"Socialism" is no more an evil word than "Christianity." Socialism no more prescribed Joseph Stalin and his secret police and shuttered churches than Christianity prescribed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and socialism alike, in fact, prescribe a society dedicated to the proposition that all men, women and children are created equal, and shalt not starve.
Adolf Hitler, incidentally, was a two-fer. He named his party the National Socialists, the Nazis. Hitler also had crosses painted on his tanks and airplanes. The swastika wasn't a pagan symbol, as so many people believe. It was a working person's Christian cross, made of axes, of tools.
About Stalin's shuttered churches, and those in China today: Such suppression of religion was supposedly justified by Karl Marx's statement that that "religion is the opium of the people." Marx said that back in 1844, when opium and opium derivatives were the only effective painkillers anyone could take. Marx himself had taken them. He was grateful for the temporary relief they had given him. He was simply noticing, and surely not condemning, the fact that religion could also be comforting to those in economic or social distress. It was a casual truism, not a dictum.
When Marx wrote those words, by the way, we hadn't even freed our slaves yet. Whom do you imagine was more pleasing in the eyes of a merciful God back then: Karl Marx or the United States of America?
Stalin was happy to take Marx's truism as a decree, and Chinese tyrants as well, since it seemingly empowered them to put preachers out of business who might speak ill of them or their goals.
The statement has also entitled many in this country to say that socialists are anti-religion, are anti-God, and therefore absolutely loathsome.
I never met Carl Sandburg, and wish I had. I would have been tongue-tied in the presence of such a national treasure. I did get to know one socialist of his generation, who was Powers Hapgood of Indianapolis. After graduating from Harvard he went to work as a coal miner, urging his working-class brothers to organize, in order to get better pay and safer working conditions. He also led protesters at the execution of the anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in Massachusetts in 1927.....Posted by wangle on 2008-08-25 09:14:47

Yeah I didn't think you could.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-24 15:12:55

Wangle -

By saying I'm a Marxist I merely mean that I believe in the fundamental truth of the labor theory of value and that history can be understood in terms of class struggle.

OOOOO-Kay! Let's parse this one.
"By saying I'm a Marxist I merely mean ... "
You do not "merely" mean a goddam thing. Marx set out to destroy Western civiliazation and Judeo-Christian historical values, and substitute a somewhat unoriginal and utterly unproven master system that has never worked in general or in particular, in macro- or in micro-, in broad scope or detailed item. The 100 million dead that resulted were mere incidentals, in Marxist thought. Being Marxist is like being pregnant or being dead; you either are or you are not.
" ... the labor theory of value ... "
The "labor theory of value" is like the transmission theory of auto mechanics or the engine theory of aircraft design; you are not going anywhere without the complete package.
Classical economics discusses the relationship of labor, management, and capital. Marx's conceit was that capital was unnecesary and labor could do its own management functions. But Marx was so ignorant that he confused capital with money, when capital is in reality assets: iron ore, aluminum ingots, business ideas. Money is merely a standard measuring device, and has no use beyond that.
As our free economy develops, we have learned the value of entrepreneurship as a form of capital: Edison, Carnegie, Jobs, Gates. I have probably contributed $100 per year to MicroSoft for the last twenty years, and I am well served, reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.
In contrast, bureaucracies, Marxist or otherwise, despise and suppress original thought. Where America welcomes entrepreneurs, Marxists send them to the Gulag/labor camps/re-education camps. That, as much as anything, is why America thrives and the Soviet Union collapsed.
" ... understood in terms of class struggle ... "
Well, yes, that is what Engels and Marx said. But that is in exact contradiction to the principles upon which this Republic was founded. The principles upon which this Republic was founded have made it the strongest nation on earth. The prnciples on which the Communist states were founded have led to destruction, death, and collapse.

Attacking Marx based on Stalinism is like attacking Christ based on the Spanish Inquisition.

How about attacking Marx based on Maoism? Thirty million dead in the Not-So-Great Cultural Revolution alone. How about attacking Marx based on Minhism? Millions dead in North and South Vietnam. How about attacking Marx based on Pol Potism? Two million dead in the Cambodian nation, one-third of the population? How about attacking Marx based on Kim Jong-Ilism? Millions dead from starvation, torture, and execution.
The total number of innocent people executed under the Marxist banners is something over one-hundred million.

From 1476 to 1834 an estimated 2,000 people were executed (under the Spanish Inquisition). - Wikipedia

Even for a semi-literate person such as yourself, the distinction should be obvious.
When non-murderous Marxists are considered separately from murdering Marxists, there is little difference in final result. The EUSSR is trying to install the European Constitution, as silly a bureaucratic exercise as has ever existed, and the people of Europe keep voting it down. Now the EU is trying to figure out how to install the new Consrtitution without the necessity of messy elections. Meanwhile the European states are suffering marked population decline, almost as bad as Russia's, but fortunately(?) Muslim immigrants with their high birth rate are making up the slack.
Blame multiculturalism, a Marxist theme to be defeated like other Marxist themes.Posted by scorp on 2008-08-24 12:27:56

Glad to hear that the book is good. Don't ruin it by giving away the ending.Posted by Phillip on 2008-08-23 21:56:23

Phillip,
Oooo, that Takaki book is a great book. I likes that book. I haven't read it all, just sections, but yeah, good stuff.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-23 19:24:51

What an amusing cluster of half-baked responses to a well researched article. LetPosted by Phillip on 2008-08-23 18:39:03

Wangle,
My reading list is large and diverse. However, based on a review of the abstract located here I have place your recommended text on the list.
Currently it falls in behind Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria? and other conversations about race. by Beverly Daniel Tatum, Ph. D. which is immediately behind A Different Mirror A History of Multicultural America by Ronald Takaki.
Hopefully your suggestion will explain how consensus via peer review = reproducible proof. The problem is that peer review is fraught with everything that any other form of examination is encumbered with. Personalities, preconceived notions of right/wrong, head in the sand-itis yadablahetc.
My reading generally falls into four categories. The first being current events, followed by history, followed by fiction, then rounded out with educational stuff. Whatever I can get in ebook form goes to the head of the list as I can put it on my palm pilot or create an audiobook out of it. The good thing about palm is that I usually have about five books going at once. So, nothing gets stale and even the longest manuscript can be worked thru.
Thanks for the suggestion, it sounds interesting, I'll let you know.Posted by Phillip on 2008-08-23 16:23:46

Phil:
1. Nobody said not to also blame congress.
By not blaming Congress you are exempting them
Yes, I agree, and no one here argued to exempt them. And if they did they shouldn't have.
2. You should read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
3. Yeah back up to 1.
4. I thought you sounded facetious earlier. I was joking.
Scorp:
By saying I'm a Marxist I merely mean that I believe in the fundamental truth of the labor theory of value and that history can be understood in terms of class struggle. (I'm also a Hegelian.) Otherwise I'm straight up American Socialist, i.e. Debsian Socialist. I love apple pie and human rights and the democratic process just as much as everyone else.
Attacking Marx based on Stalinism is like attacking Christ based on the Spanish Inquisition.
Furthermore I would challenge you to connect Eugene Debs, who I believe is the only significant Socialist candidate for president that this country has ever had, ideaologically, by word or deed, (and I mean specifically, not with conflated platitudes) with any of those candidates you named. I think your opinion on this would be interesting.
Finally I'd like to say that I love Louisiana and New Orleans and I don't mean to come off as attacking them specifically. I was being flippant again.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-23 14:03:21

Tim Posted by scorp on 2008-08-23 09:27:03

Wangle

States in Profile: The State Policy Reference Book (State Policy Research, Inc. 1991) lists LouisianaPosted by scorp on 2008-08-23 09:18:27

1. Nobody said not to also blame congress.

By not blaming Congress you are exempting them.

2. Science does operate on a majority rules basis. Its called peer review. (WhatPosted by Phillip on 2008-08-23 09:01:56

1. Nobody said not to also blame congress.
2. Science does operate on a majority rules basis. Its called peer review. (What's GW?)
3. See 1.
4. I don't care about anyone's weekend.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-22 21:38:10

I guess I am supposed to be offended that a professional journalist referred to my comment as "asinine". Sorry, my skin is thicker than that.
But, let's remember that according to the boss of the last paper I wrote for, a reporter is supposed to be objective. I realise that standards have slipped since 80-82 when I wrote for a high school paper. And, you don't have to worry about getting a C- for partisan talking points in a liberal publication. So, we can cut the author a break since this is how he put food on his table.
Just a quartet of other asinine points:
1. No matter what you think of the President, he isn't to blame. Congress is charged specifically with regulating commerce. Please see the enumerated powers. If the President is encroaching on congressional authority, it is thier place to put him in check. Blaming him does nothing constructive and allows the congress critters to avoid accountability.
2. Science doesn't operate on a majority rules basis. Science doesn't operate on a consensus basis. In order to be proven it must be reproducible in the laboratory. To be fair, I am not a scientist and don't claim to know if GW is a fact or not. I noted that it was being treated as fact for political and profiteering purposes.
3. To the poster to said that pointing out previous administrations also do it is essentially not relevent; I agree. However it does nicely demonstrate a double standard.
4. And for the folks mentioning blogs and/or forums....
http://the--realist.blogspot.com and http://talkamerica.phpbb88.com come on by, everyone is welcome.
I hope everyone has a great weekend no matter who it is you prefer to dislike.
PhilPosted by Phillip on 2008-08-22 15:13:46

Also I think Scorp is making a rather poor logical leap by saying a loyalty oath is somehow analogous to the purchase of a ticket. The loyalty oath is speech. Its composed of words and sentiments and positions and all that stuff. Cash is not speech. No relevance to the 1st Amendment there. Also defending Constitutional violations of one person by pointing out the violations of others or that Bush didn't act alone is poor logical reasoning. That doesn't advance your actual assertion. Also, as a Marxist, I'm offended by your portrayal of those people as Marxist candidates. The last significant candidate we had was Eugene Debs.Posted by wangle on 2008-08-21 20:33:15

That's an amusing statistic, Wangle. I came across another one the other day: Forbes ran a piece on the most medicated states. It turns out that the top 10 states all voted republican. Not that I'm making a link mind you, but still we could find a few jokes in there somewhere.
But let me be polite enough to respont to scorp's last posting -- I think you missed the paragraph where i laid out a brief case for why our current president has taken liberties with our rights. I mentioned a number of them a few of which you took unbrage with, so let me be more clear.
The right to assemble means anywhere, not some "free speech zone" set up far away from the action. You're right that I had no intention of interrupting the rally, but I sure wanted to hear more than the 30 second sound byte I knew I was going to get on the news. So I tried to go in to see the president of our nation, as is the right of every citizen. Alas, I was not allowed in to the event because I wouldn't sign my name to what amounted to a loyalty oath. Quite franky, I'm not so happy with the direction of out country, so I wanted to hear perhaps a longer explanation of the issues by the ultimate public servant. Instead, I was denied entry.
Now, you argue that is the price of admission, but should there be a price of adission to see the president? What, am I a lobbyist with a handful of bundled checks? No, I'm just a citizen. But just because I don't avidly support this president doesn't mean that they should keep me from attending.
This is just a small, though important, example of the fanatical attempt to control an environment. C'mon Scorp, imagine not being able to get into an Obama event because you wouldn't sign some paper that claimed he was the best thing since Lincoln. It smacks of fascism, not a good showing by our presidential handlers.
I know this thing cuts me off, and I'm busy with the Olympics now, so I'll get back to the other stuff shortly. Later.
TimPosted by Tim Brown on 2008-08-21 20:04:31

States in Profile: The State Policy Reference Book (State Policy Research, Inc. 1991) lists LouisianaPosted by wangle on 2008-08-21 15:18:26

WTH -
I have been preparing a post for you, so I will just answer your points and make a point of my own.
Your point on President Bush
President Bush's favorable rating is less than 30% nationwide, but it is 56% in Louisiana.

The poll checked the popularity of President Bush, who got a 56 percent overall favorability rating, higher than in recent national surveys. - July 01, 2008
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1214890809159290.xml&coll=1

But wait a minute. The Marxist rap on President Bush, and the constant theme of the MSMM and the Soros news outlets is that Bush is an evil genius or is stupid (take your pick but you can't have both). Two of the main complaints of the Marxists are that President Bush lied about the WMD, and he mishandled Hurricane Katrina.
So, why does President Bush have a favorable rating nearly twice as great as the national average in Louisiana? Why did the people of Louisiana just elect a Republican governor? The people of Louisiana know that the Demonicrats are corrupt and that they screwed up badly in handling Katrina. Governor Blanco did not call out the Louisiana National Guard for Katrina because she did not realize that she was Commander of her own forces.
Soros/MSMM have blanketed the nation with charges of President Bush's incompetence, but the people of Louisiana know better. I worked in Louisiana for several years and I am quite familiar with the people and the politics, thank you.
And the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, including the charge that Saddam had WMD, was voted into law by 100% of the Senate, including Senators Kerry, Rockefeller, Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Daschle. This, of course, was before Bush became president. Now these same Senators are claiming that President Bush invented the WMD in order to go to war, a war most of them voted in favor of.
Fascist and Marxist elites both use the Great Lie technique to manipulate the volk, plebes, and proletariat. But it does not work well in a free country where the people have the means to defend themselves. Consequently, the Marxists have produced a long string of defeats of Marxist candidates: McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry. Now Zero, the most improbable candidate of this improbable lot, will be added to this list.
"This too shall pass."
Your point on federal agencies
I have a radical solution to your problem: Let's follow the Constitution!

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the simplest terms, any power that is not specifically given to the federal government is forbidden to the federal government, and belongs to the people and to the states.
So, look at the powers that the feds have usurped in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution does recognize the feds authority and responsibility to regulate some aspects of commerce, but Education? No, that is for the states and the people. Energy? No, that is for the states and the people. Housing and Urban Development? No, that is for the states and the people. Health and Human Services? No, that is for the states and the people. Abortion? No, that is for the states and the people.
Everyone claims to hate bureaucracy, but bureaucracy has a powerful attraction for people who want to express their importance and power, particularly when they are not smart enough to be entrepreneurs. Institutional bureaucracy becomes Fascism and Marxism (same thing). If we just eliminated the things that are now prohibited by the Constitution, many of our problems would be solved.
My point on shifting perceptions
Two years ago I could write on a blog that global warming, the Kyoto Protocols, and the MagicAl warnings of impending doom were nonsense, and dozens of people would question my intelligence, sanity, motives, legitimacy, and the legitimacy and race of my parents. Now Crowley writes an article in the Guardian promoting his book on global warming, and over 90% of the Brits (Brits, for God's sake!) think the idea of global warming is absurd, and can quote chapter and verse on the scientific data that proves we have suffered global cooling since 1998.
And just last week The New Republic, that soft-headed hard-Left propaganda outlet, had an article about Zero, Be Not Cool, by Michelle Cottle, and fifteen of the first twenty comments (by New Republic readers, for God's sake!) questioned her intelligence, sanity, motives, legitimacy, and the legitimacy and race of her parents for writing such crappy nonsense.
My point is that a whole lot of people, including the electorate, are starting to get the joke about the Marxists and their attempt to capture the American Republic. Who knows, maybe ITT will get the joke, too, even if they are well behind everyone else.Posted by scorp on 2008-08-20 09:06:01

As for the federal agencies themselves under any administration...
Our lives are now being increasingly controlled by those appointed rather than laws from the elected. The Fed, SEC, Treasury are run by many whose conflicts of interest are legion.
Shareholders and ordinary citizens be damned, they are making decisions which make the British policies of taxation without representation look like a welcome relief.
I'd like to see someone throw them all in Boston Harbor.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-20 05:37:55

Scorp,
This discussion is so far beyond reason that nothing you say to those enthrawled will be considered plausible.
Bush is not a favorite of mine, but he's become a convenient scapegoat for any and all US problems and issues.
This too shall pass.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-20 05:31:13

Tim -
Let's have a review of the bidding here. Moraff is claiming to be a respected, competent reporter. My point to Moraff was:

Report to us why you said that President Bush is Posted by scorp on 2008-08-19 21:33:09

HePosted by Tim Brown on 2008-08-19 17:25:25

What an amusing cluster of half-baked responses to a well researched article. Let's look at a couple of them:
Big Government = Bad Government: This is a classic ruse by right-wing apologists whose goal is to eliminate any government that gets in the way of private profit. Is profit a bad thing? Of course not, and no one should begrudge a person who by a combination of skill and perseverance (and perhaps a bit of luck) have managed to make a good life for themselves. But when that profit comes at the expense of others who play by the rules - those regulations that our friend Phillip claims are too intrusive - then it is the job of government to step in and regulate behavior; to set hard and fast rules that level the playing field. Perhaps Phillip would prefer a government that eliminated regulations in the banking and finance industry that kept those institutions from charging usurious fees to their customers - oh, wait; that's exactly what happened. Or maybe he would prefer that the government drop regulations against companies that dump their waste into our rivers Posted by Tim Brown on 2008-08-19 17:24:42

Moraff -
Well, OK, reporter.
Report to us why you said that President Bush is "taking broad liberties to subvert the Bill of Rights". That is a very serious charge to make against the President fo the United States. But you treat it as a self-evident throw-away line, and make absolutely no attempt to prove, illustrate, or justify your position.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out, the Demonicrats really are trying to subvert the Constitution. And it is all politics. Pelosi supported FISA before she did not support FISA. Obama did not support FISA before he did support FISA. Both of them changed their positions for political advantage, without regard to the law or the Constitution.
I find it strange that all you Independent reporters repeat mindless Marxist propaganda, and have no other point of view to offer. When the Marxists succeed in taking away our means of self defense and our freedom of worship, we wil be as helpless as the Kulaks.
Never happen, MF.Posted by scorp on 2008-08-19 09:56:14

Can anyone possibly believe that McSame would change Bush's course and repair the federal government. The only time that
McSame loves the government is when it benefits him. End of story. He has a dangerous ideology and is very ignorant. Can anyone visualize him reading a book? They'd have to give him book props to carry, just like they gave Bush. What did Bush say once: "I read the ShakespeareS."Posted by Brianna on 2008-08-19 09:43:43

As one who is not a Bush lover, I resent being linked to such a stupid article in even a minor way.
Government bureaucracy has been building for decades under both parties. Now Christopher Moraff has man aged to pin it down to Bush?
Give me a break!
The current Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac abortion is a prime example. The congress is supposed to be the oversight but simply "overlooks" the fraud an cronyism which is being foisted on taxpayers and sucking dry the individual investors in the name of "Too Big to Fail."
This, like so many other examples in this idiotic blather, is a result of our professional "public servants" shirking their responsibilities while taking care of each other first.
A reporter who seeks the "truth" should widen his search and spare us the opinions of a couple of experts.
This kind of amateur assessment should be left for the blog battles.Posted by whattheheck on 2008-08-19 09:01:01

The Author Responds:
Phillip & Scorp:
I know that by responding I am only lending credence to your asinine ramblings, but here goesPosted by cmoraff on 2008-08-19 06:20:20

In practical terms, everything in this article is blatant nonsense.
The single most interesting piece of blatant nonsense is the accusation that President Bush is "taking broad liberties to subvert the Bill of Rights". But then there is nothing that tells us what the President has done or has tried to do to subvert the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps it was the attempt at gun control? Oh, no, wait, that is what the Demonicrats are doing.
Maybe it is the restrictions on religious freedom? Well, no, that is the Leftist Demonicrats, led by the ACLU.
How about the FISA laws? Wait, wait, wait, that can't be right, Obama himself voted for FISA.
The projection defense mechanism is an internal psychological mechanism that is used by a person, usually subconsciously, to defend himself from stress. When a person is lying to himself, he uses the projection defense mechanism to convince himself that someone else is doing the lying. The internal conflict and stress is dealt with by projecting the dishonesty onto someone else.
So, what is it that Moraff finds so stressful that he must make up nonsensical stories about President Bush? Who knows? Who cares?Posted by scorp on 2008-08-18 21:48:29

I understand that the author is an AntiBush zeleot just as the group that was "decrying Dudley as an Posted by Phillip on 2008-08-18 18:39:04